A Labour peer who was jailed for sending text messages shortly before
his car was in a fatal motorway crash has blamed his imprisonment on a
Jewish conspiracy.

Lord Ahmed claimed that his prison sentence for dangerous driving
resulted from pressure placed on the courts by Jews “who own newspapers
and TV channels”. Britain’s first male Muslim peer also alleged that
the judge who jailed him for 12 weeks was appointed to the High Court
after helping a “Jewish colleague” of Tony Blair during “an important
case”.

He claimed, falsely, that Mr Justice Wilkie was hand-picked and sent
from London………

A Labour peer who was jailed for sending text messages shortly before his car was in a fatal motorway crash has blamed his imprisonment on a Jewish conspiracy.

Lord Ahmed claimed that his prison sentence for dangerous driving resulted from pressure placed on the courts by Jews “who own newspapers and TV channels”. The Muslim peer also alleged that the judge who jailed him for 12 weeks was appointed to the High Court after helping a “Jewish colleague” of Tony Blair during “an important case”.

He claimed, falsely, that Mr Justice Wilkie was hand-picked and sent from London to carry out the 2009 sentencing at Sheffield Crown Court because no other judge was willing to handle his case. The alleged plot to punish him stemmed, Lord Ahmed claimed, from Jewish disapproval of his support for the Palestinians in Gaza. His comments were made during a television interview on a visit to Pakistan.

A leading solicitor said yesterday that if the peer had given the interview in Britain he could have been liable to prosecution for inciting racial hatred.

A Labour spokesman said that the party would investigate the comments. “The Labour Party deplores and does not tolerate any sort of racism or anti-Semitism. We will be seeking to clarify these remarks as soon as possible.”

The Times has obtained video and audio of the Urdu-language broadcast, in which the 55-year-old Pakistan-born businessman also claims, falsely, that his conviction was subsequently overturned “in a way that kept my honour intact”.

In reality, three Court of Appeal judges refused to quash the conviction.They said that the prison sentence was justified and that there should not be “one law for the rich and powerful and one law for the rest”.

The appeal court did agree to the “exceptional” course of suspending the sentence for 12 months after hearing that time in prison would hinder Lord Ahmed’s work building bridges between the Muslim world and others.

He was freed after serving 16 days in jail. Martyn Gombar, a 28-year-old Slovakian, was killed on Christmas Day in 2007 after his stationary car was hit by Lord Ahmed’s Jaguar on the M1 near Sheffield. A lengthy police investigation established that the peer sent and received a series of five substantial text messages while travelling at up to 70mph during an 18-mile southbound journey on the motorway.

The final message was sent less than two minutes before the fatal collision. Because no causal link could be established between the crash and Lord Ahmed’s texts, the peer was not charged with causing death by dangerous driving. He faced the lesser offence of dangerous driving and pleaded guilty at Sheffield Magistrates’ Court in December 2008.

The district judge adjourned the case to Sheffield Crown Court because he felt that his sentencing powers for the offence, up to six months in jail, were insufficient.

The maximum sentence for dangerous driving is two years. Passing a 12-week sentence at the Crown Court in February 2009, Mr Justice Wilkie told Lord Ahmed that he was guilty of “prolonged bad driving involving deliberate disregard for the safety of others”.

It was, the judge said, “of the greatest importance that people realise what a serious offence dangerous driving of this type is”.

In his TV interview, thought to have been broadcast in April last year, Lord Ahmed claimed that he should have been sentenced by a magistrate. “My case became more critical because I went to Gaza to support Palestinians. My Jewish friends who own newspapers and TV channels opposed this,” he said.

He alleged that Jewish-owned media organisations placed pressure on the courts to charge him with a more serious offence. He claimed that when the case was sent to the Crown Court for sentencing, no Crown Court judge, circuit judge or Recorder would agree to deliver his punishment. Instead, a High Court judge was sent from London.

Mr Justice Wilkie was alleged in Lord Ahmed’s interview to have risen to his elevated position after playing a role during Mr Blair’s premiership in “an important case involving a Jewish colleague of ours”.

It seems possible that Lord Ahmed was referring to the fact that Mr Justice Wilkie granted the Attorney-General an injunction against the BBC during the loans-for-peerages scandal, in which Lord Levy, then Labour’s chief fundraiser, had a prominent role.

The injunction, however, was granted in 2007, three years after Sir Alan Fraser Wilkie, a circuit judge since 1997, was appointed to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court.

At the time of Lord Ahmed’s sentencing in 2009 he was the Presiding Judge of the north-eastern circuit, which includes Sheffield Crown Court, and sat on many big cases in courts across the region.

Katie Wheatley, a criminal law expert and partner at the London solicitors’ firm Bindmans, said that if Lord Ahmed had made such claims in Britain he could have faced prosecution for a hate crime.

“If these words had been spoken or broadcast publicly to an audience in the UK it is certainly possible that they could lead to an investigation as to whether an offence of incitement to racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 had been committed,” she added.

Ms Wheatley said that the Act did not allow for prosecutions for such offences when they occurred abroad.

Nazir Ahmed, who grew up in Rotherham and ran a number of shops in the town, was an elected Labour councillor who was made a life peer by Mr Blair in 1998 and has since become one of Britain’s most prominent Muslim political leaders.

He said yesterday that he had “no recollection” of giving the TV interview last year. “I’ve done a lot of interviews. If you’re saying that you have seen this footage then it may be so but I need to see the footage and I need to consult with my solicitors before I make any comments in relation to this,” he added.

The Times sent a transcript of Lord Ahmed’s comments in Pakistan to his solicitor, at the peer’s request, but no further response was provided.

26 Responses to Naz Ahmed’s outrageous claims!

Here is the transcript of the appeal in which the judge accepts that his texting had nothing to do with the accident, which does rather beg the question then why the prison sentence, even if it was subsequently suspended: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/669.html

The big question no one seems capable of answering is why only one prosecution? oh, and another, why did the council sit on this for more than ten years while up to 600 young girls were targetted by this organised criminal syndicate? (Unlike other paedophile gangs, Rotherham groomers are part of a much wider organised crime network with tentacles in all sorts of business, industry and politics).

They are? I was on the jury that found five of them guilty. One was a delivery driver, another worked in a car wash and the barrister of a third admitted he wasn’t the brightest button in the box. So what do you know?

I will vote for Respect Party, as I see that as a true party in the community, many people see Yvonne as a great role in Rotherham. Phil can I ask you a question if you were the Jury why dont you come forward and tell us about the information what you got or perhaps share it with Yvonne Ridley as you think you have got alot of information about the Trial, or private email Yvonne Ridley in your own time.
Thank you

Suspended from the Labour party once again pending a full investigation into his claims. He was suspended whilst the allegation of putting a $10 million bounty on Barak Obama and George Bush and he was suspended whilst he was in prison for dangerous driving. This is the man when he was a Rotherham Councillor and the Local Government Ombudsman tried to investigate claims that he had behaved improperly during the bidding process for a council owned property that his brother was bidding on, refused to answer a single question the LGO put to him. This man gave a notorious anti-semite a counducted tour of parliament, He also called for the bodyguards of Salman Rushdie to be withdrawn!He threatened to march 10000 Muslims on parlament if it dared show a film he did not approve of! At £300 perday tax free expenses, plus travel allowances for being in the Lords,this leech has one of the best attendance records in the House of Lords.He was only a fish and chip shop proprietor befor he was given a peerage! What on earth did he do to deserve it? No matter what he does it seems we cannot get rid of him. Tony Blair who wanted Muslims in the lords and Denis MacShane who proposed him have a lot to answer for!

This piece of poltical filth got away lightly for the offence with which he was charged. He should have got at least 5 years in prison, had his title taken off him and deported at the end of his sentence. He killed someone for god’s sake and got away with it! His anti-jewish rants, and this is not the first time, should at the very least cost him his title.

He should be very thankful to one Jew who helped make him a peer namely good old Dennis. However I think he was just telling people what they wanted to hear. It seems everyone with limited educated and Muslim hate the Jews for their material plight. I say ‘material’ because the Muslim faith is very materialistic in terms of the after life. I hope millaband another Jew tries to stop people referring to people’s religious nature to gain support for their existence be it political or just breathing. Long Live the Jewish State of Israel and every other country of good will.

Given that Ed Miliband said he found the comments disgraceful and that anyone who made anti-semitic comments could not be either a Labour Lord or a Labour MP, it seems pretty likely he will be stripped of his peerage. But what Mr Miliband didn’t say was, that anyone who made anti-semitic comments would be expelled from the party. So it it really the end for Ahmed? If he isn’t expelled from the party could he in theory stand for the council as Labour candidate at some point in the near future? And if he is expelled, could he not still stand as an independent? If so then he could stand a good chance of success. Because although the Labour party doesn’t like anti-semitism, Ahmeds remarks will inevitably have resonated with some members of the community- and perhaps there are enough of them prepared to go out and vote for him.

Corect me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it for a peer to be expelled from the Lords it takes the whole membership of that house to vote to expell them. That’s why it’s so hard to get rid of the many rotten apples like Ahmed that are in there. A peer can of course resign , but there’s not much chance of the likes of Ahmed doing that. Just as the discredited and disgraced Councillor (Asbo) Akhtar would not resign after his conviction.They both know a gravy train when they’re on one! It is likely, if the story is correct, that he will be expelled fron the Labour Party, but then he will remain in the Lords as an Independent peer.

Let me see if I understand this;
If I posted a story or wrote an article that claimed Asian men of a particular faith-hypothetically Muslim-were responsible for-hypothetically-grooming young girls for sex would it be published and would I appear on national TV and be able to claim I was ‘misquoted’?
Would I escape any form of censure or punishment for an alleged ‘Hate Crime’?
Or if I wrote most suicide bombers are Muslim? ( The caveat is most Muslims are not suicide bombers)
It seems to me that Lord Ahmed, George Galloway, Al Queda, the Taliban and a certain (late) Austrian Corporal all.share a common hatred of a particular ethnic group who happen to believe in the Jewish faith.
A hate crime is any criminal offence that is motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim’s:
disability
race
religion or belief
sexual orientation
transgender identityhttp://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/hate_crime/
I look forward to the intervention of the CPS.

However I was replying to Colin Tawn’s comment that: “I look forward to the intervention of the CPS.”, when clearly the alleged offence took place well outside UK jurisdiction; and I can’t imagine that the ISI are going to charge him with any offence.
___
Whilst I felt that your comment on the difficulties and complexity of removing LordA from the House of Lords was most welcome given what others were fantasising; this wiki link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Disciplinary_powers ) seems to imply that you can at least effectively remove people from the HoL on a majority vote; but I have no idea on how one completely strip them of the honour – I believe Jeffrey Archer is still Lord Archer.

A hate crime is any criminal offence that is motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim’s:
disability
race
religion or belief
sexual orientation
transgender identity
As Malcontent wrote; He should be expelled from the Labour Party. The Labour party introduced ‘Hate Crime’ as part of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Whether Lord Ahmed uttered his words in Pakistan or Parkgate is irrelevant, his statement is abhorrent and should be investigated. Unless you perceive his utterings as harmless?

Thankyou Colin for your repeated explanation of what a hate crime is. I do know that however and repetition does not enforce your point.
Perhaps we should look at the full transcript and context of the “utterings” before further ‘judging’ of the comments.
Taking what is written in British newspapers as the absolute truth is never a good idea.
🙂

Would you then think this; ‘The Times obtained video and audio of an Urdu-language TV interview, believed to have been broadcast in April last year,…..’
dahmed-over-claims-he-blamed-imprisonment-on-jewish-conspiracy-8533813.html
is another attempt by a British newspaper to sell more copies with a fairy tale headline?
It does not matter if the full transcript is published or not, or in what context. Any anti-semitic or race and creed bias is wrong. I fail to understand why you want to wait and see the full transcipt before believing this news item has any merit.

Are you saying because my views differ from your own my logic is faulty? If so then you need to level the same accusation at Ed Milliband. Lord Ahmed has NOT denied saying what has been reported .
He told the Times that he had “no recollection” of the Pakistani TV interview, adding: “I’ve done a lot of interviews. If you’re saying that you have seen this footage, then it may be so, but I need to see the footage and I need to consult with my solicitors before I make any comments in relation to this.”http://www.channel4.com/news/lord-ahmed-suspended-over-jewish-conspiracy-comments

“Are you saying because my views differ from your own my logic is faulty?”
No.

1. In one of your earlier comments you suggested that LordA’s alleged utterances should be investigated by the the CPS, without considering that the alleged utterances took place in Pakistan, and probably outside UK jurisdiction.
(UK does claim the right to prosecute UK citizens for “offences against the person” – e.g. manslaughter etc, when they take place outside UK, but as far as I know (and I am not a lawyer) that is as far as it goes.)

The Pakistani Constitution says:
“19. Freedom of speech, etc.
Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court,[15][commission of] or incitement to an offence.”

I am not sure in my own mind how LordA’s alleged utterances breach that principle; in which case it would be most difficult to bring a case in a Pakistani court.

However I do agree that it should all be investigated by the Labour Party, and if substantiated, he should be expelled from the party.

But as it seems that the following comment
“I fail to understand why you want to wait and see the full transcipt (sic) before believing this news item has any merit.”
is addressed to me, I respond thus –
I did not say I wanted to see the transcript before believing the news item has any merit. Of course it has merit – as a news item.
It will only become a ‘crime’ when either Ahmed admits to saying it intending it to be hostile, or it is proven (by someone or other somewhere against some rule or law).

I also agree that this should be investigated by the Labour Party, and if substantiated, Ahmed should be expelled from the party. I have however, long since lost any faith that I may have had that this will be done honestly and openly by the Labour Party.